courts created doctrine (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

courts created doctrine in Louisiana

10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Plaquemines Par. Com'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co.red
la · 1987 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1994–2002
2 sentences

2002Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane [ 616 So.2d 657 (La. 1993) ], supra; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

1995Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane, supra ; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

33
Wimberly v. Gatchgreen
la · 1994 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–2006
2 sentences

2006The supreme court discussed the doctrine of contra non valentem in Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361, pp. 8-9 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206, 211 [citations omitted]: The courts created the doctrine of contra non valentem, as an exception to the general rules of prescription.

2002The Supreme Court discussed the application of this theory in Wimberly v. Gatch, 635 So.2d 206 (La.1994): The courts created the doctrine of contra non valentem, as an exception to the general rules of prescription.

15

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Hillman v. Akins green
la · 1994
2 sentences

2016Hillman v. Akins, 93-0613 (La. 1/14/94), 631 So.2d 1, 4 .

2002Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane [ 616 So.2d 657 (La. 1993) ], supra; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

41994–2016
Bouterie v. Crane green
la · 1993
2 sentences

2002Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane [ 616 So.2d 657 (La. 1993) ], supra; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

1996Bouterie, supra ; Wimberly, supra. Generally, the doctrine of contra non valentem suspends prescription where the circumstances of the case fall into one of four categories, only one of which is applicable to the present case, that is, where some cause of action is not known, or reasonably knowable, by the plaintiff, even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant.

41994–2002
Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. green
la · 1992
2 sentences

2002Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane [ 616 So.2d 657 (La. 1993) ], supra; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

1995Hillman v. Akins, 631 So.2d 1 (La.1994); Bouterie v. Crane, supra ; Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351 (La.1992); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034, 1054 (La.1987).

31994–2002
Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation & Development green
la · 2002
1 sentence

2007The Louisiana Supreme Court and this Court have determined the factual situations to which the doctrine applies so as to prevent the running of liberative prescription: "1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's action; 2) where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; 3) where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of the cause of action; or 4) where the

12007–2007
Thomas v. State ex rel. Department of Health neutral
lactapp · 2006
1 sentence

2007The Louisiana Supreme Court and this Court have determined the factual situations to which the doctrine applies so as to prevent the running of liberative prescription: "1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's action; 2) where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; 3) where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of the cause of action; or 4) where the

12007–2007

Where else courts name it

LA 10 (1994–2016) IL 3 (1976–1999) CA 3 (1987–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check